About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
ronald reagan did in his debate against jimmy carter. people don't remember all the facts and figures, the recitation of the facts and figures, they remember a significant line or a significant phrase that brings them back to reality. >> senator john mccain is the only man who has debated both of these individuals. he weighed in on the expectations this morning. take a listen. >> serve and provide us -- >> it's not just that they go bankrupt, he doesn't understand -- >> comments that grabbed everybody's attention. because frankly, the candidates are too well prepared. they're well scripted. >> what you did not hear the beginning there, is the senator said i think you're going to see more viewers, than any debate in history. and then he also said he can't remember the last time that any of these things affected the outcome of a presidential race. save 1960 and 2000, have the debates ever really impacted the outcome of a race, chris kofinis? >> it's funny, i hear the debate about debates not necessarily mattering. and i actually disagree with that i think the 1980, the reagan/carter deb
again. >> so who won? >> it's a ronald reagan win and really because he kept employing that disarming phrase there you go again. to carter he never really had an answer. he looked very awkward afterwards and that was obviously a pre-rehearsed line that reagan unleashed on carter to great effect. right now you see barack obama and mitt romney trying to find their version of their "you go again" hoping it could perhaps score some points. we're critiquing not just the speech but the body language and that little bit of interaction between the two men and there's a duel going on there that we try to decipher and phrases like that when they score are considered knock out punches. >> there was another moment of body language in 1980 when vice president al gore made an unusual move towards then governor george w. bush of texas. >> that's what the question in this campaign is about. it's not what your philosophy and your position on issues. but can you get things done. and i believe i can. >> what about the norwood bill? >> forgive me that was 2000. what did you make of that maneuver there?
. ronald reagan's perspective has dominated republicans' thoughts on this matter for years. >> we have a different approach, the president and i, between a government-dominated society and a society driven by free people pursuing their dreams. >> reporter: romney insists the federal government should be smaller and less intrusive in terms of regulations and taxes and largely it should keep out of the free market. >> i line up with a smaller government, a less intrusive government, regulations being pared back. >> such views on both sides of course can make a difference. but here is the catch. for the past century, with a few exceptions, the government has been expanding no matter which party has held the white house. more cabinet positions, more agencies, more spending per citizen and much of that is driven by things like we menged at the start. population growth, economic trends and entitlements, meaning the question is probably not whether the government will keep growing under mr. obama or mr. romney, but rather how fast. tom foreman, cnn, washington. >>> child sex trafficking, thos
talk about all the time. i talked about tip o'neill and ronald reagan of the 1980s. didn't see eye to eye. they got things done. '90s you and bill clinton. a fascinating character. you guys obviously didn't see eye to eye. you got things done. and bill clinton is having a huge impact in this race. rich lowry of course of the national review said if you want to see when this election turned it was in the middle of bill clinton's speech. this guy still -- you said something about georgia ads. what was that? >> i was told last night by randy evans who is the national committeeman from georgia that there are more ads in georgia for obama with clinton in them than there are with obama in them. which makes sense. you know, bill clinton is the best political figure in terms of skill since ronald reagan. >> right. >> that's just a fact. >> right. >> and his ability to communicate, i thought his speech, which i had to watch, i actually didn't watch the obama speech. >> right. >> i watched the clinton speech. i thought it would be more creative, more interesting. and it turned out to be a lo
dwroefr come. it's not easy to beat an incumbent president, and mitt romney is no ronald reagan or bill clinton. >> when you have an incumbent president with 8% unemployment, it's very difficult to win. romney has proven to be the worst candidate we've seen in perhaps 30, 40 years. i go back to steve's memory now when we get into 50, 60, 70 years. i agree with what's said including your points about mccain. if romney ran in '08 as he is now, obviously he did run in '08 and it didn't work out with him. one day we blame romney, and we've seen a lot of blame for romney throughout the campaign. one day blaming the polling and liberal media. i think that's a stretch. when do we look at the ideology and the difficult sell that is for the american people. when you have a party where the conventional wisdom is that this is a party that is here for the rich to serve the rich and the corporations, that's a very difficult sell. i don't know that chris christie, regular guy, could sell that better. i don't know if rick santorum can sell that better than what we've seen already. >> well, obviously,
position. social security is structurally sound. it's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by ronald reagan and speaker -- democratic speaker tip o'neill. but the basic structure is sound. but i want to talk about the values behind social security and medicare. and then talk about medicare because that's the big driver -- >> sure. >> -- of our deficits right now. you know, my grandmother, some of you know, helped to raise me, my grandparents did. my grandfather died a while back. my grandmother died three days before i was elected president. and she was fiercely independent. she worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. and she ended up living alone by choice. and the reason she could be independent is because of social security and medicare. she had worked all her life, put in this money, and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go. and that's the perspective i bring when i think about what's called entitlements. you know, the name itself implies some sense
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)